hwp_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure, and it does: it states the tool does not launch Hancom, edit a document, or access a user file, making its non-destructive, side-effect-free nature explicit. It does not define what 'ready' means, but the output schema can carry the return semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the key verb and resource front-loaded. Every sentence adds information: the first states the operation, the second explicitly rules out side effects.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is essentially complete for selecting the tool. The only gap is more explicit usage timing or a pointer to hwp_foreground_status for the foreground-window status variant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no meaningful parameter information to add. Schema description coverage is 100% and baseline for no-parameter tools is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('local Hancom 2022 automation bridge'), and clarifies it is a status/readiness operation. The negative clauses explicitly separate it from launch/edit/file-access behaviors, which distinguishes it from editing/launching sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: call it to verify the automation bridge is ready before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of hwp_foreground_status or other siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives by name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.